Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Application Bliz Exis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TCEQ grants hearing requests, refers Bliz Exis land-application permit to SOA
Summary
The commission granted multiple hearing requests and referred the application by Bliz Exis LLC for a Texas land application permit (WQ001611001) to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for contested-case proceedings on groundwater, surface-water, odor, buffer and design issues.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on Aug. 6 granted hearing requests from several community groups, one groundwater district and multiple individual requesters and referred the application by Bliz Exis LLC for a new Texas land-application permit (WQ001611001) to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOA) for a contested-case hearing.
The draft permit would authorize land application disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 12,000 gallons per day. The commission's analysis focused on who qualifies as an affected person and whether the issues raised by requesters are referable to SOA. The commission agreed with staff and OPIC that the Fitzhugh Neighbors, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, Save Our Springs Alliance and Hays-Trinity Groundwater Conservation District had demonstrated standing and timely, material issues and should be granted hearings.
The commission also granted hearing requests from named individuals who filed timely comments and were in proximity to the proposed disposal site: Susan Munz, Carrie and Vic Naporyoski, Shield Ranch, Richard and Tracy Sorensen, Stephen Warenchus and Kevin Fleming. Commissioners said these requesters had shown they may be personally affected in ways not common to the general public. The commission denied the remaining hearing requests and denied requests for reconsideration.
The commission referred a list of issues to SOA for the contested case. As stated in the motion, the issues to be addressed include whether the draft permit will protect the health of requesters and their families, livestock and wildlife; whether the draft permit is protective of water quality by preventing effluent discharges or adversely affecting groundwater; whether the draft permit complies with siting and buffer-zone requirements including odor and effluent storage under chapters 309 and 222; whether the draft permit contains adequate effluent limitations and testing requirements to prevent nutrient accumulation and leaching; whether the applicant complied with applicable notice requirements; and whether the application and proposed subsurface drip dispersal system comply with applicable design criteria in 30 TAC chapter 222. The commission specified a maximum hearing duration of 180 days from the preliminary hearing to issuance of a proposal for decision.
The motion to grant the named hearing requests, deny other requests, refer the listed issues to SOA and set a 180-day maximum hearing duration passed on an aye vote.
The commission's order clarifies that regionalization policy in Texas Water Code section 26.0282 does not apply to land-application permits because that provision applies to discharge permits; commissioners cited the statutory distinction when declining to refer a regionalization issue to SOA. The item's referral will create a formal contested-case docket at SOA where the identified technical and siting disputes will be developed through testimony, exhibits and cross-examination.
